FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

If violence, terror, beheadings, forced conversions, subjection of women, and intolerance of others are removed or “transformed” in Islam, is it still Islam?

I.

The President of Egypt, at Al Azhar University in Cairo, recently did everyone a favor by putting on the table, from inside of the Islamic world itself, the question of its public conduct and inner soul as they relate to the Muslim religion. Does its conduct, as manifest in its deeds, flow from its religious beliefs? One and a quarter billion Muslims, President al-Sisi bluntly affirmed, cannot hope to eliminate the other six and a half billion human beings. A May 14, 2014, article in the American Thinker estimated that over the centuries some 250 million people have been killed in wars caused by Islam. The religion itself thus needs, in al-Sisi’s view, a thorough “revolution” or transformation.

The issue that I bring up here, in the light of these observations, is this: “Is such a revolution possible without, in effect, eliminating the basic content of what we know as Islam?” If violence, terror, beheadings, forced conversions, bad treatment of women, and intolerance of others are removed or “transformed” in Islam, so that they are no longer parts of the religion but condemned by it, is it still Islam? Would it not be something totally unrecognizable as the same Islam faithfully loyal to its founding by Mohammed? If so, it would follow that something is radically disordered in the founding itself and its development to its present form.

No one thought that communism could fall except, perhaps, Reagan and John Paul II. Some elements of it still strive to hang on, to be sure, but its evils have generally been acknowledged as inhuman. Is there a similar hope about an unexpected turn in Islam? Could it almost miraculously morph into something else? Or, if it changes in any basic way, does it not have to change into something already known, such as Christianity? Or Hinduism? Or even modernism? Are the violent manifestations within Islam towards itself and others simply an aberration? Or, are they essential to the mission to which Islam is committed, namely, to conquer the world for Allah? The authors of Charlie Hebdo hoped that Islam would become as “harmless” as Christianity has become. But is a “harmless” Islam an irrelevant Islam?

In 2011, I called attention to the work of scholars (mostly German) in establishing a critical edition of the Qur’an. It becomes evident that the text of this famous book could not be what it is claimed to be—that is, a revelation in pure Arabic delivered directly from the mind of Allah in the seventh century through Mohammed. Moreover, it is said to be unchanged in any way, not only from its first appearance, but also from eternity.

My assumption, of course, is that the Muslim mind—or any mind—when faced with facts, can recognize a contradiction in its own origins or practices if pointed out. If the Qur’an cannot be what it said it was, how can anyone uphold it? If it is a correlation to previously existing texts, its origin is not what it said it was. The effort to eliminate the scholars who even dare to wonder about this issue is not an argument in favor of the Qur’an, but against it, a sign of unwillingness to examine the evidence. One can only suspect that the failure of any source in Islam itself to produce a critical edition of the Qur’an, combined with the efforts to impede anyone else from doing so, is an indirect proof that many in Islam know there is something strange about the original text that is not explained by the theory of direct revelation.

II.

Muslim thinkers, in the light of contradictory statements in the Qur’an, have had to devise a philosophical thesis about Allah’s nature that would, supposedly, defend the text from incoherence.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Firefighters carry a victim on a stretcher at the scene of a shooting at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper, Jan. 7. (CNS photo/Jacky Naegelen, Reuters)

“What is Islam?” Revisited | Fr. James V. Schall, SJ CWR

Within Islam, the world is divided into a zone of war and a zone of peace. Those who are in the zone of war or sympathize with it are enemies who deserve death.

“An aspect of the attack (in Syria) that was not often reported in the media was the way the Islamist invaders tried to remove not only the Christians but the Christianity from the town, a phenomenon that is common now when Islamism expands in the Middle East and in the greater Muslim world. It is not enough that Christians should leave, convert, or die, but all traces of Christianity should be removed as well.” — Michael Coren: Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity (Plattsburg, N. Y. McClelland & Stewart/Random House Canada, 2014), 48

“Seventeen-year-old Ismael said he was ordered this summer by his Islamic State superiors to help behead every male ages 14 to 45 from an enemy Syrian tribe in Deir Essour. The teenager said he balked, but his 10-year-old brother took to the job with zeal. Activists said hundreds were killed.” — Maria Abi-Habib, “The Child Soldiers Who Escape Islamic State: Boys, Teenagers Tell of Lessons in Beheading, Weaponry at Training Camps,” Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2014

“The Islamic State stormed unimpeded through Mosul, Qaraqossh, and the smaller towns of Nineveh province last summer, marking Christian homes with the letter ‘N’ for ‘Nazarene’ and giving residents an ultimatum: renounce Jesus Christ and convert to Islam, or die. The 200,000 Christian faithful in Nineveh, many of whom still pray in Aramaic, refused. For that, they had to flee en masse one August day with little more than the shirts on their backs. Some, including children, were slaughtered, and some may have been enslaved.” — Nina Shea, “Christians on the Run from Iraq,” National Review Online, December 24, 2014

I.

Michael Coren, the Canadian journalist and TV host, has written a sober and frank book, titled Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity. Its basic intent is to survey and accurately recount the extent of Islamic persecution of Christians in particular in every area of the world from the Mid-East, to Africa, Indonesia, Asia, the Philippines, Europe, and America. Others besides Christians are also attacked, but Christians have become the prime target. The goal, now almost achieved in many areas, is the total elimination of Christians from Muslim-held areas. No doubt, for many, this startling phenomenon has certain apocalyptic overtones. As Coren himself stated, one needs a strong stomach just to read about the mind-numbing, brutal Islamic atrocities that regularly occur in every part of the world—beheadings, stabbings, rapes, throat-slittings, eye-gougings, knifings, burnings, and killings of every imaginable sort.

These scenes are not figments of anyone’s imagination. They are often recorded live in various media. Most people cannot even imagine them even when they see them. If the extent and inhumanity of this persecution of Christians are at all reported in the West, they are played down or unstated because of political presuppositions, ecumenical or liberal presuppositions, or because of cowardice and very real fear of Muslim retaliation—the murder of 12 in Paris yesterday being a timely and horrifying example. While Walid Phares, Robert Spencer, Laurent Murawiec, and Andrew Bostom, among others, have presented earlier graphic accounts of Muslim-originated atrocities, Coren has brought this bloody record up-to-date, as the violence has increased measurably in recent months.

When Robert Royal finished his book Catholic Martyrs in the Twentieth Century in 2000, I recall being especially struck by his observation that so many of these martyrs died quietly, unknown except to God. Usually they lived good lives. In no way were they the cause of their fate, other than for their being Catholics or Christian. A reading of the Coren book leaves one with the same agonizing impression. Catholics and Christians of every denomination are now being slaughtered on a regular basis in various Muslim-dominated lands for no other reason than that they are followers of Christ.

The Spirit of Christmas and the Spirit of Islam | William Kilpatrick | CWR

How much do Christians and Muslims have in common? Plenty of clues can be found in the celebration of Christmas.

“The man that hath no music in himself/ Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds/ Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils” –William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

Every year around this time, Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), sends out a Christmas message to Christians. The gist of the message is that Christians and Muslims have much in common because “Muslims also love and revere Jesus as one of God’s greatest messengers to mankind.” And to prove it he quotes from chapter 3, verse 45 of the Koran:

Behold! The angels said: “O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and in (the company of) those nearest to God.

The Catholic authors of Nostra Aetate probably had this verse in mind when they declared that Muslims “revere” Jesus and “honor Mary.” Statements like this, along with the fact that Muslims esteem prophets and martyrs and engage in prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and pilgrimage, are seen by many Catholics as proof that Islam and Christianity are very similar religions. Christians would do well, however, not to take too much comfort in these apparent similarities. Although Christians and Muslims share some similar texts and similar practices, the two faiths are separated by a wide gulf.

A close examination of texts will reveal the chasm, but another way of grasping the crucial differences between Islam and Christianity is to note that the two faiths have a completely different “feel.” When we talk about a “gut feeling” or “getting a feeling” for a new activity, we mean that we understand something in an intuitive, experiential way. It’s one thing to read an instructional manual on tennis, and another thing to play it.

Christmas: A Point of Reference

One way to appreciate the different “feel” of the two religions is to think about Christmas. It means a lot to Christians. They decorate Christmas trees, set up mangers, exchange Christmas cards, sing carols, and celebrate solemn yet joyful liturgies. On the other hand, although Muslims celebrate a number of religious holy days, Christmas is not one of them—which, when you think about it, is a bit strange. Muslims, according to Hooper, “love and revere Jesus,” but they studiously ignore his birthday.

Muslims have the Christmas story (or, at least, a truncated version of it), but they don’t have Christmas. Why? Well, essentially because there’s nothing to celebrate. To Muslims, Jesus is not the redeeming savior of the world, but simply a prophet whose main job, it seems, was to announce the coming of Muhammad.

Not only does Islam lack Christmas, it lacks many of the humanizing elements that we associate with Christmas.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Retired Pope Benedict XVI arrives for the beatification Mass of Blessed Paul VI celebrated by Pope Francis in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican Oct. 19. To the right is Archbishop Georg Ganswein, prefect of the papal household and the personal secretary to Benedict. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

The proclamation of Jesus Christ, says the retired pontiff, is not about numbers or power, but the transmission of "that joy which has been given to us."

Francis X. Rocca of CNS has a report for CNS on a speech by Benedict XVI, delivered on October 21st to faculty and students of Pontifical Urbanian University in Rome; the address was read by Archbishop Georg Ganswein, who is prefect of the papal household and the personal secretary to Benedict. Rocca reports some of the address, which doesn't appear to be available online in its entirety:

"The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people," retired Pope Benedict wrote. "'But does that still apply?' many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. 'Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?' The counter-question is: 'Can dialogue substitute for mission?'

"In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality," the retired pope wrote. "The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.

"It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine," he wrote.

The address emphasized that the proclamation of Jesus Christ is not about gaining "as many members as possible for our community, and still less in order to gain power. ... We speak of him because we feel the duty to transmit that joy which has been given to us."

This appears to echo many of the thoughts expressed by Benedict on April 17, 2008, at the U.N., during his Apostolic Journey to the United States:

I have noticed a growing interest among governments to sponsor programs intended to promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue. These are praiseworthy initiatives. At the same time, religious freedom, interreligious dialogue and faith-based education aim at something more than a consensus regarding ways to implement practical strategies for advancing peace. The broader purpose of dialogue is to discover the truth. What is the origin and destiny of mankind? What are good and evil? What awaits us at the end of our earthly existence? Only by addressing these deeper questions can we build a solid basis for the peace and security of the human family, for “wherever and whenever men and women are enlightened by the splendor of truth, they naturally set out on the path of peace” (Message for the 2006 World Day of Peace, 3).

We are living in an age when these questions are too often marginalized. Yet they can never be erased from the human heart. Throughout history, men and women have striven to articulate their restlessness with this passing world. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Psalms are full of such expressions: “My spirit is overwhelmed within me” (Ps 143:4; cf. Ps 6:6; 31:10; 32:3; 38:8; 77:3); “why are you cast down, my soul, why groan within me?” (Ps 42:5). The response is always one of faith: “Hope in God, I will praise him still; my Savior and my God” (Ps 42:5, 11; cf. Ps 43:5; 62:5). Spiritual leaders have a special duty, and we might say competence, to place the deeper questions at the forefront of human consciousness, to reawaken mankind to the mystery of human existence, and to make space in a frenetic world for reflection and prayer.

Confronted with these deeper questions concerning the origin and destiny of mankind, Christianity proposes Jesus of Nazareth. He, we believe, is the eternal Logos who became flesh in order to reconcile man to God and reveal the underlying reason of all things. It is he whom we bring to the forum of interreligious dialogue. The ardent desire to follow in his footsteps spurs Christians to open their minds and hearts in dialogue (cf. Lk 10:25-37; Jn 4:7-26).

Thursday, May 01, 2014

The name "Jesus son of Mary" written in Islamic calligraphy followed by "Peace be upon him" (Wikipedia Commons)

Islam and Jesus, Son of Mary | William Kilpatrick | CWR

Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, will soon be The Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary

Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was sold in December to a Muslim group and will be turned into a mosque. The Muslim organization requested that six stone crosses be removed from the top of the century-old historic church, and the Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board has complied. However, as Syracuse.com explains in an April 6, 2014 article, “Plans to turn a church into a mosque bring pain and hope to changing neighborhood”, everything evens out because the mosque will be named the Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary “to build a bridge between the old and the new”.

So that’s all right then. Or is it? The news story is written to the theme that Islam and Catholicism share much in common—two sides of the same coin, so to speak. A diocesan spokeswoman is quoted as saying that “the building is once again being used to meet the needs of a growing population on the North Side, just as Holy Trinity did as it served the Catholic faithful.” In this telling, immigrant Muslims are just like immigrant Catholics of a hundred years ago. After all, both believe in Jesus, the son of Mary. “The Muslims could not keep the crosses on the church,” the Syracuse.com report concludes, “But they chose the mosque's name to build a bridge between the old and the new: The Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary.”

Why do the crosses have to come down? The reason, as explained by one of the Muslim organizers, is that “crosses are not an appropriate representation of the religion of Islam.” Why is that? Because the Koran maintains that Jesus was never crucified and therefore never rose from the dead (4:157).

In short, there are reasons to wonder if the Jesus, son of Mary that Muslims revere is the same Jesus that Christians revere.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Why the Jews Are Not the Enemies of the Church | Dr. John Lamont | HPR

It is not true, in any sense, that the Jews are the enemies of the Church, and the characterization of them as enemies is unjust

In a recent talk in Canada, Bishop Bernard Fellay, a member of The Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX), stirred controversy by remarking that the Second Vatican Council was looked on favorably by the Jews, Freemasons, and Modernists, who are all enemies of the Church, and that this was a reason for objecting to the council itself. One should not read too much into Bishop Fellay’s remark itself, since it was a brief aside, and since he has never in the past expressed anything more than the basic Christian claims about Jews. The remark should, nonetheless, not have been made, and should now be corrected. It is not true, in any sense, that the Jews are the enemies of the Church, and the characterization of them as enemies is thus unjust. It is worthwhile explaining why this is so, because the belief that the Jews are enemies of Catholics was once widely held, and is still found in some circles. Priests will thus find it helpful to have a fairly comprehensive account of why the belief is wrong.

To show that the Jews are not the enemies of the Church requires an examination that addresses all the principal attacks on Jews that arise in discussion of this question.

One such attack maintains that the Jews are enemies of the Church in virtue of their religious beliefs. The religious beliefs in question are those of Rabbinic Judaism, which has been the dominant form of Jewish religious belief for the past two millennia. Rabbinic Judaism developed as a result of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which removed the center of Jewish religious life. Some replacement for the Temple was required if Jewish religious existence was to continue. In the century or so after the destruction of the Temple, the study and observance of the Jewish Law was developed as this replacement.

The fundamental idea of the new structure of Jewish religion was that, in addition to the written law in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament or the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), Moses received an unwritten law from God on Mt. Sinai, which was passed down by word of mouth through a succession of rabbis. This unwritten law was then supposed to have been committed to writing in the Mishnah—the collection of rabbinic traditions which supplements and systematizes the commandments of the Torah—which was completed around 200 A.D. The Mishnah contains laws on agriculture, festivals, marriage, civil and criminal law, ritual laws, and purifications. It is essentially an attempt to record and perpetuate the religious and legal views held by the scribes and Pharisees prior to the destruction of the Temple, together with inevitable covert extensions of these views. The difficulties of the Mishnah led to the composition of an authoritative commentary on it, the Gemara, completed in the 5th century, which exists in both Palestinian and Babylonian versions. The Mishnah and Gemara together make up the Talmud; the Babylonian version is the one generally used.

The reason why Rabbinic Jews are not enemies of the Church can be put briefly.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Robert R. Reilly's monograph, The Prospects and Perils of Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, argues that the real problem with political and social structures in Islam is theological

Peter D. Beaulieu

In the middle of the ninth century the Caliph al-Mutawakkil abruptly terminated the Mu’tazilite school of Muslim rationalist theologians, thus leaving stillborn the earliest chance to harmonize Islamic belief with reasoned (“Hellenistic”) thought on man’s relation with God and each other. This early turning point is the focus of Robert R. Reilly’s inquiry into a sectarian Islam as much “at war with itself” as with the West. He joins Pope Benedict XVI (Regensburg Lecture, 2006) in focusing at the interreligious or intercultural level. Reilly is moderate in tone but incisive, non-polemical but direct, as he draws from a wide range of sources both Christian and Muslim.

Drawing from his earlier work (The Closing of the Muslim Mind), Reilly begins with formal Church pronouncements for interreligious dialogue and for collaboration on issues like justice and peace and life. The sticking point, not yet addressed in these documents, is our nevertheless (and profoundly) different understandings of the natures and relationships of God and man. From the historical background of Islamic theology we are led through Muslim responses to Church’s dialogue initiatives—material calling for attention and real debate. The following review should not substitute for reading The Prospects and Perils of Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, which this reviewer recommends to a broad citizenry as well as specialists and academics. Reilly’s audience includes leaders in interreligious dialogue and surely those positioned to restore the coherence of Christian witness under the New Evangelization.

With Hasan Hanafi of Cairo University, Reilly holds that the real problem with social, political, and economic structures in Islam is theological: the “inherited intellectual substructures.” It is at this level that “reform must take place and real dialogue be held.” Reilly notes that reason is not among the ninety-nine names for Allah (nor does the term “Father” appear in the Qur’an). Given the multiple perils from any imprecise framing of issues, the meaning or translation of basic terms (peace, justice), and the contradictory contexts in which identical things might be said, Reilly builds toward a critique of the three regional conferences on Catholic-Muslim Dialogue in the United States.

Referring to relevant litigation, the U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation trial (2008), he suggests that “if the FBI prohibits formal cooperation with un-indicted co-conspirators, perhaps the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops should also.” Based on access to only the published records, he plausibly equates some dialogue with cooperation. The bishops legitimize too routinely the most available (and radical) Muslims groups. The bishops might pause to consider Reilly’s documentation and weigh his conclusion that “Catholic-Muslim dialogue in the United States requires a major reevaluation in terms of the organizations involved, the personnel participating, and the substance addressed.” (Participants in the 2000-2011 Dialogue are listed in an Addendum.)

The Historical Context

Historically, the ninth century Mu’tazilites cut across all sects and schools of theology in their experimentation with a more reasoning Islam, but were blocked by the more cautious Ash’arites whose grip on Islam is barely diminished after twelve centuries.

Friday, November 22, 2013

This special CWR symposium, consisting of eight essays, is the result of a promise made earlier this year as well as the desire to address and discuss some timely questions related to the Year of Faith (which concludes this Sunday on the Feast of Christ the King), the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, and the New Evangelization.

In April, CWR published a review by Dr. David Paul Deavel of Dr. Ralph Martin's book, Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization (Eerdmans, 2012). It was then decided that the review would be withdrawn until a later time; as Mark Brumley, president of Ignatius Press and publisher of CWR, explained, CWR wished “to provide a fuller treatment of a difficult subject than the original review, in my opinion, is able to provide. … The goal is to try to understand what’s what, who’s who, and how best to proceed in fulfilling the Great Commission, without overlooking the genuine nuances and insights theological wisdom provides.”

To that end, we asked six theologians to take up one, two, or all three of the following questions:

• What did the Council say about the possibility of salvation for those who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church?

• What are the reasons for the apparent widespread loss of emphasis on evangelization following the Council?

• How can the directives of Vatican II and recent popes about evangelization be best explained and implemented?

Those theologians are Douglas Bushman, STL, Dr. Nicholas Healy, Father David Meconi, SJ, Tracey Rowland, Father James V. Schall, SJ, and Father Thomas Joseph White, OP.

This symposium includes Dr. Deavel’s original review, as well as essays from the seven authors above. It concludes with the essay, “Did Hans Urs von Balthasar Teach that Everyone Will Certainly be Saved?” by Mark Brumley.

Saturday, October 05, 2013

Recent
comments by the Holy Father, especially in interviews, are lacking in
three important things

"Nonetheless,
Lombardi stopped short of saying that every line was literally as
pronounced by the pope, suggesting instead that it represents a new
genre of papal speech that’s deliberately informal and not
concerned with precision." —
John Allen, Jr., reporting
today that journalist Eugenio Scalfari's Oct. 2nd interview with
Pope Francis was not recorded, but was the product of "an
after-the-fact reconstruction".

The
19th-century controversialist William G. Ward, a convert from
Anglicanism and a vigorous defender of all things Catholic, once
exclaimed, "I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my
Times at breakfast." Since weekly papal interviews were not yet
a common occurrence in the 1860s, it's not clear if Ward, were he
among us today, would accept papal interviews in lieu of the somewhat
more authoritative papal bulls.

A
sense of humor and a sense of perspective are both helpful when
pondering the recent interviews given by Pope Francis. For those who
might be ready to jump off the edge of their Catechism of the
Catholic Church into the cold darkness of either cynicism or despair,
just consider how turbulent things would have been if the internet
had been around during the Avignon papacy. Even worse, imagine if
Twitter, Facebook, and Andrew Sullivan had been around during that
infamous (but little discussed) period sometimes called "the
Pornocracy"—a stretch of six decades or so in the
tenth century that witnessed about as much mortal sin, nepotism, and
abuse of power as the papacy could handle.

If
that seems like an overly extreme historical reference, you may have
missed how some are saying, with obvious glee, that Francis is unlike
any previous pontiff and is set to remake the papacy and the Catholic
Church in ways that eyes have not seen and ears have not heard
before. You may have also missed how others are saying, with obvious
distress, that Francis is unlike any previous pontiff and is set to
remake the papacy and the Catholic Church in ways—well, you get the
picture. There are also those who are, with the best of intentions,
insisting that nearly all of the hysteria, furor, and meta-narratives
are completely missing that Francis is both a surprising breath of
fresh air and an often misunderstood man who desires nothing more
than a Church radically committed to Jesus Christ and living the
Gospel with a profound spirit of evangelical fervor. The
oft-expressed hope that the Pope can unite and bring all men of good
will together is apparently being realized, albeit in a unity based
in countless arguments over what Francis really says, means, and
intends.

For
my part (and I'm hardly alone here, I'm certain), I reject the first
two options and agree in part with the third, with some important
qualifiers. Let's begin with the Good:

Monday, June 17, 2013

Written in the midst of the nuclear arms race and the Cold War, John XXIII’s landmark encyclical contains important messages for our world today.

On April 11, 1963, The Beverly Hillbillies was the top television show in the
United States, works by J. D. Salinger and John Steinbeck topped the fiction
and nonfiction bestseller lists, and the lead headline in the New York Times was “Atom Submarine with 129 Lost in Depths
220 Miles Off Boston; Oil Slick Seen Near Site of Dive.” The Chiffons’ “He’s So
Fine” was the nation’s most popular song; It Happened at the World’s
Fair, starring Elvis Presley, was the most popular movie. And
Blessed John XXIII issued Pacem in Terris (“Peace
on Earth”), the first papal encyclical addressed not only to the Catholic
faithful, but also to all men of good will.

“By
addressing an encyclical on peace to all men of good will, John XXIII was not
merely being good Pope John,” says Mary Ann Glendon, president of
the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and the Learned Hand Professor of Law
at Harvard Law School. “He was insisting that the
responsibility for setting conditions for peace does not just belong to the great
and powerful of the world—it belongs to each and every one of us. That’s
crystal clear in the closing paragraphs where he says, ‘There is an immense
task incumbent on all men of good will’—the task ‘of bringing about true peace in the
order established by God.’ It’s ‘an imperative of duty; a requirement of
love.’”

Blessed John wrote his encyclical
letter de pace omnium gentium in veritate, iustitia,
caritate, libertate constituenda, according to the encyclical’s
Latin title—“about
establishing the peace of all nations in truth, justice, charity, liberty,” or
as the phrase is more loosely rendered in the
most popular English version, “on establishing universal peace in truth,
justice, charity, and liberty.” The official Latin version appears in Acta
Apostolicae Sedis(beginning on page 257); the Vatican website’s
Latin
version contains additional notes and at least one Latin error that did not
appear in the original. The official version contains five untitled sections
with unnumbered paragraphs.

The Italian version contained section
titles, subsections, and subsection titles where none exist in the official
Latin text. The translator of the most popular English version, which
originally appeared in the publication The Pope Speaks,
incorporated these Italian additions, while the translator of another English
version, found here,
did not. This latter English translation has the advantage of adhering more
closely to the Latin in the body of the encyclical; unfortunately, it does not
retain the original division into five sections, thus making the encyclical
appear less structured than it is really is.

Reaction and
influence

Pacem in Terris is an extended
reflection on the moral order. “The Creator of the world has imprinted in man’s
heart an order which his conscience reveals to him and enjoins him to obey,”
the pontiff wrote (no. 5), explaining:

Friday, May 03, 2013

The two recent pieces by William Kilpatrick, "Christianity and Islam: Cooperation or Conflict?" (Apr. 21) and "Of Bishops and Bombers" (Apr. 29), have generated a lot of discussion on the CWR site. Some of the comments and premises behind them jump out at me, especially those that talk about "true Islam" being this or that, believing this or that, and being capable (or incapable) of doing this or that. Such remarks bring to mind an important book published by Ignatius Press a few years ago, 111 Questions on Islam (2008), which is a lengthy interview with Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, SJ, the Egyptian scholar of Islam who teaches in Beirut and at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome.

In a section headed, "Can Islam Change?", Fr. Samir discusses the problem of authority in Islam, especially the authority to make final, binding interpretations of various suras, especially those that advocate violence toward and subjection of Christians and Jews. Fr. Samir writes:

I speak about the violence expressed in the Qur'an and practiced in Muhammad's life in order to address the idea, widespread in the West, that the violence we see today is a deformation of Islam. We must honestly admit that there are two readings of the Qur'an and the sunna (Islamic traditions connected to Muhammad): one that opts for the verses that encourage tolerance toward other believers, and one that prefers the verses that encourage conflict. Both readings are legitimate. (pp. 69-70; emphasis added)

A bit later, Fr. Samir states,

Today the problem is that, whatever their position, Muslims will not admit that some verses of the Qur'an no longer have relevance for present situations. Therefore, the 'ulima' (qur'anic doctors of the law) are obliged to say that they do not agree with those who choose to adopt the Verse of the Sword as normative, even if they cannot condemn them. Consequently, in the Qur'an there are two different choices, the aggressive and the peaceful, and both of them are acceptable. There is a need for an authority, unanimously acknowledged by Muslims, that could say: From now on, only this verse is valid. But this does not—and probably will never—happen.

What are the consquences of this serious problem?

This means that when some fanatics kill children, women, and men in the name of pure
and authentic Islam, or in the name of the Qur’an or of the Muslim
tradition, nobody can tell them: ‘You are not true and authentic
Muslims.’ All they can say is: ‘Your reading of Islam is not ours.’ And
this is the ambiguity of Islam, from its beginning to our present day:
violence is a part of it, although it is also possible to choose
tolerance; tolerance is a part of it, but it is also possible to choose
violence. (p. 72).

This helps make sense of the fact that very few Muslims or Muslim groups renounce acts of violence committed by those who identify themself as Muslim and as carrying out jihad. Regarding jihad, Fr. Samir points out that "All the Islamist groups who adopt the word jihad into their organization do not intend it to be understood in its mystical meaning but rather with its violence connotation. ... The term jihad indicates the Muslim war in the name of God to defend Islam" (p. 62). He also notes that historically, three different ways, or tendencies, have developed within Islam as it seeks worldwide conversion of all people. The most extreme is that which uses military action and violence. The second is the "mystical-spiritual" approach, which "has as its goal the Muslim return to the lost authentiicty of Islam and the propogation of the message of Qur'an among non-Muslim populations." The third approach is "socio-political" in nature, and it involves migration and political strategies with a long-term approach to domination, which "is considered an inevitable movement of history" (pp. 139-40).

In 2010, in an interview with National Catholic Register, Fr. Samir again referred to the "ambiguity" inherent to Islam today:

Some would argue that the 9/11 bombers were not real Muslims, but fundamentalist ideologues and terrorists?

Yes but this is the wrong position because radical Muslims are true
Muslims. I’m not saying that the true Islam is bin Laden, this is not my
opinion. But I would contend that bin Laden is a true Muslim – a true
Muslim. Pastor Terry Jones [the evangelical pastor who has threatened
to burn the Koran] cannot say he’s truly representing Christianity
because you cannot find anything in the Gospel that says that. But all
the positions of radical Muslims you’ll find in the Koran and in the
tradition. You’ll find other positions, but this is one, and one that is
very strongly presented in the Koran and in the Sunnah. Nine-eleven was
a Muslim action even if for apologetic reasons, it’s said that this was
a terrorist action and terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, that
Islam means peace and so on.

Fr. James Schall, SJ, in his lengthy review of Fr. Samir's book in Homiletic & Pastoral Review (November 2009), wrote:

One of the most useful things that Samir does in this book is to
explain how the Muslim will understand us. He will see signs of weakness
in what we call simple good will or cooperation. We see the suicide
bomber as a kind of blind madness or fanaticism. Samir explains how
Muslim theologians have worked around suicide bombing so as to justify
it. The suicide bomber even becomes a “martyr.” In this case, suicide
bombing becomes a kind of personal sacrifice, even though many others
are killed and suicide was generally condemned in Muslim tradition.

Samir is aware that many Muslims just want to live in peace. But
others have a much more aggressive concept of what Islam is about. They
think that everyone should be Muslim. A Muslim who converts to another
religion or philosophy can be subject to death. Muslim countries will
vary in how this penalty is carried out, but it is a factor that is not
simply imaginary.

The people of the world, to worship Allah properly, should all be
subject to the one Law, which should be enforced by what we call the
state. Samir recounts that in Islam there is no real distinction between
state, religion, and custom. There is absoluteness in this worship that
allows no one to be outside. Jews and Christians, as a sort of
compromise, are given a certain second-class status in Muslim countries,
provided they pay a tax and do not seek to convert Muslims. Those who
are not Jews or Christians technically can be killed. It is difficult to
believe that such rules or traditions exist, but they do. And they are
not seen as in any way wrong. They are part of a pious effort to subject
all things to Allah. ...

This incisive book deserves widespread reading. It is clear, sensible
and well-informed. It represents what the service of intelligence to the
faith really means. It follows Aquinas’ dictum that we must understand a
position urged against the truth. Only in understanding this can we
estimate what we are up against and begin to think of how to confront
it. Father Samir’s 111 Questions will do more than start us thinking about these issues. It will lay out the whole scope of what the “ambiguity of Islam” means.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

In his Sunday homily the week after the Boston Marathon bombing, Cardinal Sean O’Malley said that the action of the bombers was a “perversion of their religion.” We have grown accustomed to hearing such statements from prelates, as well as from presidents and prime ministers. Terrorist have “perverted” their religion or “distorted” it or “misinterpreted” it. But how accurate are such assessments?

On one occasion, Muhammad ordered the beheading of more than 700 Jews who had surrendered to him. On another occasion, when a severed head was tossed at his feet by one of his men, he exclaimed that it was “more acceptable to me than the choicest camel in Arabia.” On still another occasion he exulted, “I have been made victorious through terror.” Indeed, the Qur’an is full of admonitions to terrorize. Was Muhammad perverting the religion he founded? Was he a “misunderstander” of Islam?

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev felt obliged by their religion to wage jihad. A song on their YouTube playlist is titled “I will dedicate my life to jihad.” Had they misunderstood or perverted the meaning of jihad? Many of Islam’s official representatives in America would like us to think so. They tell us that jihad is simply an interior spiritual struggle or a quest for self-betterment. For example, the Council on American Islamic Relations in Chicago sponsors a bus ad campaign that presents a benign interpretation of jihad. Sample: a picture of a young Muslim woman wearing a gym outfit and a hijab accompanied by the caption, “My jihad is to keep fit despite my busy schedule. What’s yours?”

That’s one possible way to interpret jihad, but it’s not the main way that jihad has been understood in Islamic tradition throughout the centuries.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Christians and Muslims, Living Together | Preface to English Edition of 111 Questions on Islam (Ignatius Press, 2008) | Samir Khali
Samir, S.J. on Islam and the West | Interviews conducted by Giorgio Paolucci and Camille Eid

It Is a Fact That Muslims Are Now Part of Western Society

Due to large-scale immigration to Europe and the Western nations from Muslim
countries since World War II, Islam is no longer a distant, exotic religion. In
fact, Muslims are present throughout Europe and in many parts of the United
States. Demographers project that the number of American and European Muslims
will increase in the immediate future.

At present, Europeans are dealing with the challenge of protecting their values
while seeking a solution to the social ills of alienation, segregation,
poverty, and terrorism associated with the Muslim immigrants. Europeans express
concerns about the rapid development of Eurabia.

Since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center "Twin Towers"
in New York City on September 11, 2001, Islamophobia has spread through the Western
nations. The following pages were prepared to help readers understand three
things:

1. how Muslims and Christians can coexist peacefully;

2. what are the causes for the deep unrest that pervades the entire Muslim
world;

3. and what are the means to promote greater dialogue and understanding between
Muslims and Christians that will lead to a joint social, universal, and
political effort for the benefit of all people.

In order to remain sensitive to and balanced in discussing the past and present
situation, a question-and-answer format is used. The author responds to a
series of questions posed by two journalists, one Italian and the other
Lebanese. The intent of this balanced approach is to offer readers a clear
portrait of Islam.

Muslims and Christians: How to Live Together

Islam shares some common elements with
Christianity but also has many differences. The Muslim culture is quite
different from that which emerged in the Western world as a result of the
influence of Christianity. Because of massive demographic movement, both groups
are now obliged to live together in contemporary society.

The Muslim world today faces one of the most profound identity crises in its
entire existence. Comprising nearly 1.5 billion people living on all
continents, it is struggling to find a common position for all Muslims. The
search for identity has become particularly acute since the abolition of the
khalifate (the office of Muhammed's successor, as head of Islam) on March 3,
1924, by Kemal Atatürk. The khalifate was the last representative symbol of
unity of all Muslims. Therefore, contemporary Islam has no single recognized
authority that would accomplish Muslim unity.

What are the foundations of Islamic faith? Why does Islam seem to be growing so
fast today? What is the true meaning of the word jihãd, in the Qur'ãn and Islamic tradition, and in modern
Arabic? Is it correct to say that men are superior to women in Islam, or is it
just a cliché? Does religious freedom exist in Islam?

Monday, April 08, 2013

The underestimation of the divide between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity

It
is safe to say that when the Mormons built a fantastic, six-spired, gleaming
Mormon Temple outside of Washington, DC in 1974, not too many East Coasters
were familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) story.
I recall gawking at the temple during a drive, as my brother’s Catholic friend
knowingly intoned that the gold figure topping the tallest spire represented
the angel Gabriel blowing his trumpet at the end of the world. To my
then-Methodist ears that sounded appealingly Evangelical. And of course it was
entirely wrong. But it was typical of how most people approached Mormonism,
interpreting their encounters with LDS believers with the assumption that they
shared a common Christian vocabulary and frame of reference with the group,
which, while maybe a bit separatist, had to be essentially like all the other
“denominations.”

In
the years since, thanks to Mormonism’s exponential growth and our accelerated
media culture, the LDS church has become far less of a mystery in many ways.
Stories of Joseph Smith’s vision and his digging up golden plates from which he
translated The Book of Mormon—essentially
an Incan reimagining of the New Testament—as well as Brigham Young’s trek
across the Rockies have become just another chapter in American lore. Mormons
tend to be outstanding people, salt of the earth—and with Western culture
rapidly secularizing, many Christians now are advocating that the LDS are
actually separated, albeit peculiarly so, brethren.

This
seems to be the take of Stephen Webb. In a fascinating piece for First Things (Feb. 2012), titled “Mormonism Obsessed with Christ,” he says
that for a large part of his teaching career, he did not try to
hide his condescension towards Mormonism. But, Webb writes, “I have come to
repent of this view, and not just because I came to my senses about how wrong
it is to be rude toward somebody else’s faith. I changed my mind because I came
to realize just how deeply Christ-centered Mormonism is.” Concerning The Book of Mormon, he says that while
it is “lackluster,”

it is dull precisely because it is all about Jesus. There are many
characters in this book, but they change as little as the plot. Nobody stands
out but him. “And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ,
we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our
children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins”
(2 Nephi 25:26). … Every page of the book prepares the way for its stunning
climax, which is a literal appearance of Jesus to the ancient peoples of
America.

He
concludes: “The Book of Mormon raises
a question for Christians. Can you believe too much about Jesus? Can you go too
far in conceiving his glory? Let me answer that question by posing another.
Isn’t the whole point of affirming his divinity the idea that one can never say
enough about him? And if Smith’s stories are not true, aren’t they more like
exaggerations or embellishments than outright slander and deceit?”

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Dignitatis Humanae, the Council document on religious freedom, represented a development of Church teaching, not a reversal of it.

Of all the documents produced by the Second
Vatican Council, none had more revisions, saw more debate, or garnered more
controversy than the “Declaration on Religious Liberty” Dignitatis Humanae. This is in part because the document’s 15
tightly-packed paragraphs had the burden of boldly defending the rights of
conscience while at the same time respecting the teaching of the embattled
Church of the 19th century. This was no easy task, so we should be ever
grateful to the conciliar Fathers for the declaration as we face challenges to
our religious liberty today.

Change in doctrine?

The controversy stems from the accusation by both progressives and ultra-traditionalists that the
Council Fathers reversed earlier Church teaching. The
strange bed-fellows of Father Charles Curran and the late Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre agree that the declaration is a break from doctrine and that it is a
break with significant consequences for the Church.

For Father Curran, who advocates for changes
in the Church’s teaching on contraception, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and
divorce, the perceived break is a welcome example with which to argue for more
change. If the Church can totally reverse her teaching once, she can do it again.
For Archbishop Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, the break is a
betrayal. He went so far as to call the declaration outright apostasy and,
because of it, the Second Vatican Council a “robber council.” So his followers
today point to Dignitatis Humanae as
exhibit “A” in their dissent from the teachings of Vatican II.

Not everyone agreed with this assessment. The
great Dietrich von Hildebrand thought the declaration “marvelous,” and
indicated that it was overdue. He did not think it was a break from previous
teaching, but rather a natural consequence of the Gospel.

This was also the position of the drafters of the
document, the members of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. They wrote and
scrapped and rewrote version after version of the declaration in their conscientious
effort to proclaim the truth about the rights of conscience. They worked so
hard because a key aspect of Blessed Pope John XXIII’s vision was at stake.

The perception of the Church’s teaching by many
was that whenever she found herself in the minority, the Church would cry
religious liberty. However, if the Church was in the majority, the state would
be obliged to suppress other faiths. If that perception was not addressed,
argued the Secretariat, the desire of Blessed Pope John XXIII to make inroads
with non-Catholic Christians would be impossible.

This was a tension particularly acute in the
Catholic Church in America. Paul Blanchard’s 1949 anti-Catholic book American Freedom and Catholic Power
portrayed the Church as a menace to the US Constitution and real religious
freedom. Thus Father John Courtney Murray, Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston,
Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, and other American prelates agreed and
worked to advance the declaration at the Council.

The 19th century

An objective eye must admit that Dignitatis Humanae’s language does at
least appear to run counter to the language of the 19th-century popes.

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

On
Being Human In a Civilization of Forgetfulness | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Catholic World Report

The
Pope understands that the wars of the world are still fought in the minds and
hearts of men.

“The
Church represents the memory of what it means to be human in the face of a
civilization of forgetfulness, which knows only itself and its own criteria.
Yet just as an individual without memory has lost his identity, so too a human
race without memory would lose its identity.”

“I would
say that the Christian can afford to be supremely confident, yes, fundamentally
certain that he can venture freely into the open sea of the truth, without
having to fear for his Christian identity. To be sure, we do not possess the
truth, the truth possesses us; Christ, who is the truth, has taken us by the
hand, and we know that his hand is holding us securely on the path of our quest
for knowledge.”

Each year
the Holy Father gives a significant lecture to the Roman Curia about the events
of the previous year. In this year’s account, Benedict spent time recalling his
trips to Mexico, Cuba, and Lebanon. In the course of a year, the modern popes
probably see more important (and “unimportant”) people in the world than any
other public figure. Their trips to various countries are usually major events
in those countries. It is said that John Paul II was seen in person by more
human beings than any man in history.

In introducing
Pope Benedict, Cardinal Sodano recalled the liturgical antiphon: “Propre est
jam Dominus, venite adoremus–The Lord is near, come let us adore Him.” The
Child in the stable in Bethlehem, Benedict continues, “is God himself and has
come so close as to become a man like us.” Benedict never hesitates to identify
Christ as true God and true man. These very words—the “Child is God
Himself”—defy and challenge the whole world by affirming its truth.

Benedict
made a most interesting remark about Cuba: “That country’s search for a proper
balancing of the relationship between obligations and freedom cannot succeed
without reference to the basic criteria that mankind has discovered through
encounter with the God of Jesus Christ.” One presumes that, if that statement
is true for Cuba, it will be true for other lands, including our own.
Evidently, mankind has learned something about obligation and freedom from its
dealing with the reality of Christ. Essentially it is that no freedom exists
without corresponding obligation. Likewise, an obligation that is not freely
accepted is more like determinism or coercion than free responsibility.

II.

To the
Curia, Benedict devotes considerable discussion to two topics: the family and
the meaning of dialogue. The meeting on families in Milan gave the Holy Father
an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the family and the modern effort to
eliminate it as the central institution of human life.

Friday, December 21, 2012

I have been
privileged to meet many of the finest and purest Christians in the world, some
of them Catholic and some not; mind you, most of the latter have since crossed
the river or are standing on the side, gathering their courage for the dive.
They have inspired me, influenced me, educated me, and changed my life.

But this and every
Christmas I think of a person who embodied the spirit of love, forgiveness,
sacrifice, and humanity more than anyone else I have ever encountered. Yet he
wasn’t even religious, let alone a Christian. He had never really been taught
about Christianity, knew little about Christian beliefs, and was convinced that
the sand-paper of hypocrisy had rubbed away much of the splendor of organized
faith. As for the Roman Catholic Church, he knew little and cared less.

He was a secular
Jew, his name was Phil Coren, and he was my father. And he loved
Christmas.

The season of magic
began for me at around 2:00 am on
Christmas Day morning. That was when I heard the distinctive sounds of the
London black taxi cab diesel engine driving up the suburban east London street
to my house where I lived and spent my formative years. To a child, work and
income mean nothing, which is probably the way it should be. I didn’t realize,
and my father would have been angry if I had realized, that he was not paid
when he didn’t work—but that whatever happened, he would always devote Christmas
Day to his wife and to his children, to what mattered most to him and to his
family.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Archbishop Joseph Augustine DiNoia, O.P., is a very fine
theologian who taught theology for decades and has written extensively. Several questions about his teachings
are probably on the minds of Traditionalist Catholics since his recent
appointment as vice-president of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission. A few hours in a seminary library were
enough to answer some of them.

1) What does the new vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei
Commission teach about the Eucharist?

Then-Father DiNoia contributed a chapter to a Book of
Readings on the Eucharist published in
2006 by the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy of the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops. Although the
essay, entitled “Eucharist and Trinity”, is focused on “communio theology”, the author refers to the Mass as a “sacrificial
banquet”. A few excerpts
follow:

The Church is
a creation of the triune God: from
the Father, who sends his Son and his Spirit to transform creaturely persons so
that they come to share, with the uncreated Persons of the Trinity and with one
another, a communion of divine life.
(p. 41)

We have been
invited from the highways and byways to be guests at a wedding banquet that we
did not prepare and in which our participation is confirmed only by our being
suitably clothed in Christ, in robes “washed ... in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev
7:14; see Mt 22:1-14). (p. 41)

The prayer of
consecration involves a solemn invocation of the Holy Spirit, by whose power
the death and Resurrection of Christ are made present, and the bread and wine
are transformed into his Body and Blood.
Then, by worthily consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, the faithful
are made divine and brought into union with the Father and with one another,
through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit. (p. 44)

2) What does Archbishop DiNoia think about ecumenism and
interreligious dialogue?

Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance had been tempting me from the bookshelf where it lay since I began at
Ignatius Press a few months ago. Arriving with a background in
International Development from a public university, I wondered how
cultural diversity, tolerance and world religion would be addressed by a
man who leads the Church that claims to possess (that public school
no-no phrase) “absolute truth.”

What I discovered in its pages was not a dainty, unmoving response
to my curiosity. Instead it offered a powerful and consequence-bearing
discussion of what it means to discover, explore and accept truth—with
confidence. It presents neither a pompous declaration of “religious
superiority,” nor an apologetic, half-hearted “acceptance” of anything
and everything. Ratzinger suggests a “radical process of reflection
about what [Christians] are and what they are not, what they believe and
what they do not believe, what they have to offer and what they cannot
offer.”

Truth and Tolerance
becomes a call to practically question the premises on which one lays
claim to truth, and once discovered, to lovingly act upon that truth. A
wonderful read for anyone wanting to explore or reignite their beliefs
in the context of other religions. Truth and Tolerance is also available as an ebook.

Tessa
Bowman joined the Ignatius Press accounting team in May after
graduating from UCLA in 2011 with a degree in International Development
Studies. After working on an education project in Kenya, Tessa left
Africa refreshed and determined to work for another organization which
explored and defended her beliefs. She was thrilled to find her place at
Ignatius Press. She pays the bills, so keep smiling at her.

*Employee
Pick of the Week program features savings of 40% off a book, movie, or
compact disc personally chosen and recommended by an Ignatius Press
employee. Each week, an Ignatius Press employee will select a favorite
book, movie, or other Ignatius Press product and write a few sentences
about why he/she thinks customers will enjoy the particular selection. A
short bio of the selecting employee will also be included, giving
customers a chance to learn a bit more about the people who are Ignatius
Press

Friday, August 10, 2012

For the past 30 years, Israeli Judaic scholar Menachem Cohen has been on a mission of biblical proportions: Correcting all known textual errors in Jewish scripture to produce a truly definitive edition of the Old Testament.

His edits, focusing primarily on grammatical blemishes and an intricate set of biblical symbols, mark the first major overhaul of the Hebrew Bible in nearly 500 years.

Poring over thousands of medieval manuscripts, the 84-year-old professor identified 1,500 inaccuracies in the Hebrew language texts that have been corrected in his completed 21-volume set. The final chapter is set to be published next year.

The massive project highlights how Judaism venerates each tiny biblical calligraphic notation as a way of ensuring that communities around the world use precisely the same version of the holy book.

According to Jewish law, a Torah scroll is considered void if even a single letter is incorrect or misplaced. Cohen does not call for changes in the writing of the sacred Torah scrolls used in Jewish rites, which would likely set off a firestorm of objection and criticism. Instead, he is aiming for accuracy in versions used for study by the Hebrew-reading masses.

That last sentence puts this interesting news in proper perspective, along with this: